The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says?

Cite?

 

Ah, there it is. Thank you for the correction.

 

I dont think theres anyone who agrees with everything the SC rules. But theres no shortage of people who will try to use their rulings to win an argument anyway, when it suits them.

...which is valid in a court of law, but rather disingenuous in most other settings. Unless one is of the opinion that rights and morals are derived from the legal system, which few will admit to believing, but many seem to nonetheless believe anyway.

 

No, the Supreme Court cannot distort the meaning of the words that were written into the Constitution and its 27 Amendments. At the time the Constitution and all Amendments were written, a "year" consisted of either 365 days (except during 'leap year').

BUT, as we have seen throughout history, important parts of the Constitution have been negated, contorted, or simply ignored, depending on whatever whim was in fashion with the ruling power 'bloc' of the day.

Perhaps the very best example of this is what happened to the 10th Amendment! The wording of the 10th Amendment, which as not changed since it was added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, reads thus:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Very obviously, the Federal Government under Abraham Lincoln, crushed the 10th Amendment, and it has never been restored to its original meaning in actual practice ever since....

."The 10th Amendment says what I tell you it says, or else!"

 

Maybe they are simply telling you that your understanding differs from the Supreme Court understanding.

But they haven't said that, have they.

 

I did, and that remains bedrock truth, but I ration my time.

 

There is a more recent Brunson case out of Utah. Wake up and smell the napalm.

 

Supreme Court did not hear a case seeking to oust Biden and other elected officials | AP News

 

Maybe you should provide the link of that case then and let me read it.

 

Why should a conservative supreme court hear a case in which the election was already decided?

 

It is far too complicated for you to understand. I'm more of a psychologist/sociologist than a lawyer.

SCOTUS refused to engage the obvious facts presented because it is more concerned with protecting the status quo than in defending the US Constitution and the rule of law.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2023/02/21/supreme-court-again-rejects-utah/

A lawsuit from a trio of Utah brothers seeking to kick President Joe Biden out of the White House and return Donald Trump to the presidency will not be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court again rejected the brother’s case on Tuesday.

In January, the Supreme Court declined to consider Brunson v. Adams et al., which claimed nearly 400 members of Congress violated their oaths of office by failing to investigate claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election and certifying Biden’s Electoral College win on Jan. 6, 2021. The suit sought to remove Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and those members of Congress from office, while immediately making Donald Trump eligible to be inaugurated as president. That request ignores the Presidential Succession Act, which specifies the Speaker of the House would be next in line for the presidency.

In an appeal filed on Jan. 26, Raland Brunson, the lead plaintiff in the case, along with brothers Loy and Deron, argued the Supreme Court should reconsider the decision not to hear the case because it “represents a very powerful domestic covert operation” that has impacted the national security of the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

 

Actually, it is that even logically possible?

Let's consider:

1. The Constitution says what 5 justices says it says.
2. Lawrence v. Texas, we find the following sentence: “Bowers v. Hardwick was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled.”
   
3. If 1 is true, it's not possible for Bowers to have been wrong when it was decided, since it was the decision of a Supreme Court majority, and therefore was all that the Constitution could mean.
4. Therefore the Lawrence majority must be wrong when it says that Bowers was “not correct when it was decided.”
5. But if 1 is true and the Lawrence decision is a decision of the majority it could not wrong about the fact that Bowers was wrong.
6. It's not logically possible for both Lawrence and Bowers to be right, and yet both must be right if, in fact, 1 is right and the Constitution means only what the judges say it means.
   
7. It's clear that 1. can't possibly be correct.

 

So are you saying that if the Supreme Court ruled that a year meant seven million days, then the president could essentially be the president for life?

 

Different justices, different decisions. All valid unless/until overruled. All Constitutional.

 

So the constitution changed?

 

Yes. They are the final arbiter of the law, and their ruling is final, unless they later overrule it.

 

Well, they are the final adjudicator of legal disputes.

The law (i.e. the Constitution) does not change.

 

The Constitution remains. Rulings change, and with them our understanding of the Constitution.

 

Adjudication of legal disputes doesn't change the constitution.

 

No one has argued it changes the Constitution, so you are arguing a strawman

 

Good to know. So the constitution is NOT what the Supreme Court says it is. It is what is written down for all of us to read and understand.

 

The judges' decisions govern our understanding of the Constitution's meaning.

 

As interpreted by the judges.

 

Even when they're wrong?